CHS Mod Proposal

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
So to fork or not to fork - this is - as always - the question !

True, although "forking" is not the end of the matter. We can still borrow ideas from each other. For example, I am hoping to try one or two of Nik's ideas for reducing the bloodiness of air-to-air combat in CHS (speceifically, increasing aircraft durability by 50%, and increasing AA effectiveness by 50% to compensate). So the "forks" can intermingle again...

Andrew

Actually I think Pry has solved some things no one else has ( like in the logistics area ) and Nik has solved something no one else has ( like in several of the combat routines ) and CHS has solved some things ( like in the OB area ) and Andrew has solved somethings ( like in the geography area ) that no one else has - so the "dream" for me would to be to somehow converge the best of all of these - but that's a pretty tough dream to make happen - i'll admit. But it can still be a dream !!!

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
So to fork or not to fork - this is - as always - the question !

True, although "forking" is not the end of the matter. We can still borrow ideas from each other. For example, I am hoping to try one or two of Nik's ideas for reducing the bloodiness of air-to-air combat in CHS (speceifically, increasing aircraft durability by 50%, and increasing AA effectiveness by 50% to compensate). So the "forks" can intermingle again...

Andrew

Actually I think Pry has solved some things no one else has ( like in the logistics area ) and Nik has solved something no one else has ( like in several of the combat routines ) and CHS has solved some things ( like in the OB area ) and Andrew has solved somethings ( like in the geography area ) that no one else has - so the "dream" for me would to be to somehow converge the best of all of these - but that's a pretty tough dream to make happen - i'll admit. But it can still be a dream !!!

I second that!!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Actually I think Pry has solved some things no one else has ( like in the logistics area )

I thought that CS had already incorporated quite a bit of what Pry did for logistics. In fact some of the things that were done - such as reducing Allied daily supply - especially in India - were done by CHS first, then taken up by Pry as well.

If you think that there are things in Pry's scenario(s) to do with logistics that CHS does not have, and should have, please let us know.

Andrew

[witpqs]

I think he means the reduced capacity of AK's & AP's. I played an AI scenario and it does slow things down. Trouble is it also really slows down troop movement. Not really sure that I like the effect of that. I think the supply limis in CHS are pretty good.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think he means the reduced capacity of AK's & AP's. I played an AI scenario and it does slow things down. Trouble is it also really slows down troop movement. Not really sure that I like the effect of that. I think the supply limis in CHS are pretty good.

A whole bunch of us were in a chat room awhile back discussing this reduction of carrying capacities for AK/APs and increasing load costs of devices, vehicles, guns etc. I think the logistic idea may have been borne during that chat rather than from some individual mod.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think he means the reduced capacity of AK's & AP's. I played an AI scenario and it does slow things down. Trouble is it also really slows down troop movement. Not really sure that I like the effect of that. I think the supply limis in CHS are pretty good.

I should have mentioned that as well - there were also reductions in ship capacitites in CHS, but I think that they are not as large as the reductions that Pry made.

[Nikademus]

Pry's AK/AP/TK reductions were adopted in my mod. I have liked their impact on the game play thus far. I opted to go a few steps further however in terms of the logistical supply generators and made some major logistical changes to China and Oz.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Pry's AK/AP/TK reductions were adopted in my mod. I have liked their impact on the game play thus far. I opted to go a few steps further however in terms of the logistical supply generators and made some major logistical changes to China and Oz.

How are your air combat modifications (to accuracy and weapon range was it?) working out Nik?

[Nikademus]

very well.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think he means the reduced capacity of AK's & AP's. I played an AI scenario and it does slow things down. Trouble is it also really slows down troop movement. Not really sure that I like the effect of that. I think the supply limis in CHS are pretty good.

I should have mentioned that as well - there were also reductions in ship capacitites in CHS, but I think that they are not as large as the reductions that Pry made.

I'm in Aug 43 ( 7 Dec start ) for CHS in one PBEM game and Japanese still have 100s of hulls of AP/AK sitting around with nothing to do - and all oil/resources are being cleared about as soon as they appear. So Japanese shipping shortage still isn't on the horizon. TK are certainly busy - none are sitting idle - but no shortage - and there are 27 AO sitting around "supporting the fleet" - and in a pinch most of them could start hauling oil if needed. So no tanker shortage either .. and they are comming in faster than they are sinking.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

very well.

I'll check out your AAR

[Nikademus]

there's currently only one active AAR. The beer wars AAR is temporaily inactive because there is simply nothing of note going on and a recent poll seemed to indicate that people disliked AAR's that were primarily combat report driven in nature.

the 4.0 faq will probably give a quicker accessment of the recent modifications.

[el cid again]

Then reveal it, for heaven's sake, instead of sitting on it. If you're just saying you have it, that doesn't mean anything.

I was told to post proposed changes to see if there is interest. At the moment the charter is to fix certain things - but NOT ships. On the other hand, I believe in testing - so if you want to test unofficial mods say so.

[el cid again]

There's no problem at all - after all you're in charge of your own mod. If you decide the data's fine, you accept it yourself and include it in your own mod.

\

True. ANd I am surprised how easy it is to do that. The system accepts data just fine. This posting is about modding CHS. It is to test for interest - do people want corrected data of this sort?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There's no problem at all - after all you're in charge of your own mod. If you decide the data's fine, you accept it yourself and include it in your own mod.

\

True. ANd I am surprised how easy it is to do that. The system accepts data just fine. This posting is about modding CHS. It is to test for interest - do people want corrected data of this sort?

I for one would not like to see the CHS combined with other mods. For the record I oppose any attempts to make the historical data "fit" some pre-conceived notion of "flaws" in some of the various aspects of the game engine, usually to the detrement of historical reality or the laws of physics. This does not, however, prevent individuals from applying various mods to the CHS. But if the design team for CHS decide to incorporate the various mods then I will probably withdraw my support of CHS.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There's no problem at all - after all you're in charge of your own mod. If you decide the data's fine, you accept it yourself and include it in your own mod.

\

True. ANd I am surprised how easy it is to do that. The system accepts data just fine. This posting is about modding CHS. It is to test for interest - do people want corrected data of this sort?

I for one do, however i sometimes find myself in the minority...[:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm all for the CHS and am supportive of various "adjustments" modders have done to the data in order to alleviate some of the horrid issues the game engine and hard coded aspects create which hinder playability (like spreading supply all over the place to prop up an already crippled AI). So, I guess I'm with Alaskan Warrior and those who have modded various work arounds to the system, as long as they have proven beneficial. No individual can say that the stock engine and scenarios are the "accurate" representations we all strive for so there is nothing wrong with attempting to bring both OOB and engine/code issues up to a higher standard. ( I don't understand AW's problem here because the stock product is not exactly a high water mark of accuracy or design) I am, however, just as open to what-ifs, as long as the CHS provides more than one version. ie CHS Historical with no respawn; CHS Historical with respawn; and perhaps CHS What-if varieties.

[el cid again]

I for one would not like to see the CHS combined with other mods. For the record I oppose any attempts to make the historical data "fit" some pre-conceived notion of "flaws" in some of the various aspects of the game engine, usually to the detrement of historical reality or the laws of physics. This does not, however, prevent individuals from applying various mods to the CHS. But if the design team for CHS decide to incorporate the various mods then I will probably withdraw my support of CHS.

I am confused about your meaning here. Digging into CHS it appears that as is it clearly involves attempts to tweek real data to compensate for flaws in the engine: see for example armor on submarines (to reduce ASW effectiveness) and armor on merchant ships (to reduce the effectiveness of machine guns). Now the gatekeeper says the subs will lose their armor - that changes in the WITP engine code have made it no longer germane. And I for one think the merchant ships should lose their armor - because it is false and because it is not a "flaw" to say they are vulnerable to MG fire. [Note that patrol craft - in WWII and today - often are so armed - and it is a foolish merchant captain that ignores them]. I THINK you are saying you like changes towards real data. But MAYBE you are saying you don't like changes at all. Care to clarify?

[TheElf]

Nik,
Any Chance we can get you to make your Air Combat Adjustments for the next CHS release?

Anyone know what is main difference between PRY's mod and say the CHS/Nik's mod? I'm not familiar with it.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Nik,
Any Chance we can get you to make your Air Combat Adjustments for the next CHS release?

Anyone know what is main difference between PRY's mod and say the CHS/Nik's mod? I'm not familiar with it.

Recalling the chat last year, I believe the main difference between Pry's mod and CHS was a logistical/OOB one. While the CHS added more merchants which were missing, varied the classes beyond the simple stock variety, reduced the capacity of shipping and attempted to rectify the abundance of resource/oil centre production, PRY opted simply to lower the capacity of merchants and reduce production centres. CHS had hoped that the developers would change the resource/supply issue (ie remove the 1:1 supply/resource dynamic and add a withdrawl requirement for merchants...basically adopt a sensible logistical system) to allow the historical shipping but PRY, I guess being on the inside knew this was not going to happen, simply kept the reduced shipping as in the stock scenarios. My take on it anyway.